PARAMANKURICHI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,TIRUCHENDUR vs. ITO, TIRUCHEENDUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2092/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 June 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, which was a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, failed to file its return of income for AY 2019-20. Upon receiving information about cash deposits, the AO reopened the assessment. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P because the return was not filed within the due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is valid. Whether the deduction under Section 80P is allowable when the return of income is not filed within the due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P,Section 80AC,Section 139(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Respondent: Mr. C.P. Solomon, Addl. CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 17.03.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

ITA No.2092/Chny/2026 Paramankurichi PACCS :- 2 -:

2.

The assessee is a cooperative society and did not file the return of income for AY 2019-20. The A.O received information that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.1,01,50,000/- into the bank account. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after passing order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. The assessee in response to the notice filed the return of income declaring Nil income after claiming deduction u/s. 80P to the tune of Rs. 4,08,882/-. The A.O while completing the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80P of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not filed the return of income within the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act and therefore the deduction cannot be allowed as per the provisions of Section 80AC of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised a legal contention stating that the notice reopening the assessment was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee. The CIT(A) on merits upheld the disallowance made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that Ground No.5 & 6 pertain to the legal contention that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO instead of FAO. the Ld. AR placed reliance of the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case R1144 Perambalur PACCS Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No.672/Chny/2026 dated 26.05.2026], where it has been held that:

ITA No.2092/Chny/2026 Paramankurichi PACCS :- 3 -:

“9. We shall take up this Ground No.3 at first instance as it goes to very root of the matter. In this case, we find that the appellant raised jurisdictional issue that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) have no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Jurisdiction to issue the above notice vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer(FAO) in accordance with the provisions of explanation inserted to Section 151A read with CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. The appellant cooperative society relied on the following decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 451, Hon’ble Madras High Court in TVS Credit Services Ltd. vs. DCIT in WP No.14255 of 2023, 22.04.2025 and Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kings Pride Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2024] 157 taxmann.com 134, wherein, it was held that the issuing notice u/s.148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) is ultra vires the notification no.18 of 2022 of CBDT and the consequently held that the notice issued u/s.148A(b) and 148A(d) and 148 are null and void. 10. In view of the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2026, in the light of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of cases involving identical issue in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).57403/2025 vide order dated 03.02.2026 setting aside the orders passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Telangana High Court for fresh consideration before the Hon’ble High Courts, the matter requires remand to the file of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of justice, the matter requires remand to the file of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for denovo disposal of appeal keeping in view of the Finance Act 2026. All the contentions raised by the appellant are left open for consideration before the ld.CIT(Appeals).”

4.

The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for a similar direction in assessee's case also. Considering the facts in assessee's case being identical respectfully following the above decision of the Coordinate Bench, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a denovo consideration in accordance with law and judicial precedence.

ITA No.2092/Chny/2026 Paramankurichi PACCS :- 4 -:

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19th day of June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग"र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 19th June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु!/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.06.23 11:55:58 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →